To be clear, the US would still win any war, but if they have to kill a few thousand Europeans to do it they’ll think twice because of the damage to trade.
If the US wanted to gain control over Greenland with minimal risk to US troops, all it needs to do is interdict resupply by air (stage resources at Pituffik, use of carrier-based resources) and sea (a few destroyers and subs should do it, with subs and carrier-based fighters having the duty of reacting to military escorts of supply ships).
The US would also probably want to take Kangerlussuaq in the very early days of any occupation attempt, to secure a better-located air base, since Pituffik is so far north.
The defensive challenge for Greenland is not only the lack of a military presence and infrastructure to support such, but also the fact that its European population is completely dependent on imported supplies due to the lack of local food, fuel, medicine, etc. (Some of the local Inuit, particularly those away from the larger communities in places that are mostly militarily irrelevant, still remember how to subsist on what’s available in the local environment.)
If Denmark and its allies were to pre-stage military assets (probably at Kangerlussuaq and Kulusuk…maybe also at Nuuk now that the airport’s been upgraded, although I don’t know how much infrastructure is there that can be adapted; possibly also at Narsarsuaq, although the airfield there is in the process of being virtually abandoned, which would create challenges), and pre-stockpile a LOT of supplies at those airfields and major communities, it could extend the defense of Greenland.
It could be possible to provide some defense of Greenland from Canada and Iceland (probably mostly Iceland, as Canadian bases are too-exposed to a US response), but that would only be postponing the inevitable.
The defense of Greenland would be slightly easier if Denmark were to evict the US from Pituffik, but given our Glorious Leader’s attitude, it’s extremely unlikely that any such demand would be respected, and the demand to evict probably would escalate the situation.
So…the US probably can gain military control over Greenland without too much effort, and likely the only consequences to it would be semi-severing economic and diplomatic ties to Europe and Canada, which our Glorious Leader doesn’t care about.
The long-term impact to the US and the west, of the change in economic/diplomatic climate, however, could potentially be huge, especially if Russia and mainland China were to capitalize on the change.
Some of the long-term impact probably would be blunted if the Dems reclaim the White House in 2029, although the damage would already have been done (actually, the damage is being done now). But that assumes that our Glorious Leader and his surrogates/handlers actually allow power to be handed over.
2 Likes
The very problem with the EU is there is no such thing as EU troops
You should think twice about which brain is running the U.S. It is in someone who doesn’t care about anything but himself.
Not to worry as his morality is keeping him in check.
There are 5 single point borders on the map.
- Kamchatka - Alaska
- Greenland - Iceland
- Central America - Venezuela
- Brazil - North Africa
- Siam - Indonesia
You need to control both sides of the single point border to be secure. If you take Greenland you need to take Iceland to be secure.
1 Like
What about the space between Kamchatka and Greenland?
He already listed Kamchatka - Alaska. (And NW territory is between Alaska and Greenland).
I was talking about the Canadian Arctic which is a massive territory.
NORAD needs revitalizing.
they are talking about the board game “Risk”. : )
1 Like
Thanks. I missed that.
Haven’t played Risk in over 50 years so didn’t pick up on that.
True . . . but NORAD still needs revitalizing.
Afterall, with a more locally-owned outpost, they can track Santa a whole lot better!
Tracking Santa seems to be their main activity
1 Like
That Hispanic Saint??
2 Likes
Denmark makes it clear the US can’t have Greenland without spilling NATO blood.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/denmark-greenland-trump-annexation-nato-9.7045838
Here is the source of the Trump idiocy about Greenland.
Yup. We had 10,000 troops in Greenland in the 1950s. We currently have less than 200 but Denmark would permit 10,000. This is not about security.
1 Like
While not that freaking huge, it is pretty freaking huge.
And there’s only 55k people there. So, we could give every Greenlander $1M, and it would only cost to $55B, which would be $100/acre. Not that I know what we would do with it, besides rename it Trumplandia.
Of course, Denmark might have something to say.
Jeez. Just do that but with cuba. At least then you get a Caribbean island.
My friend just returned from cuba, he’s a regular there. He claims they’ve been laundering drug money for Venezuela for years and now have problems. He expects the cuban regime to fall in weeks.
And if the U S doesn’t, I’m fine with making cuba another province.
1 Like
10M people in Cuba, so it would cost $10T to give them all a million dollars.
But yes we should definitely conquer more of the Caribbean. Someone call up JFK.